Comments on: Our new report – gazing into a tobacco-free futurehttp://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2014/07/11/our-new-report-gazing-into-a-tobacco-free-future/
The latest news, views and opinions from Cancer Research UKMon, 02 Mar 2015 23:01:34 +0000hourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=4.1.1By: Valianthttp://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2014/07/11/our-new-report-gazing-into-a-tobacco-free-future/comment-page-1/#comment-37946
Sat, 12 Jul 2014 18:20:00 +0000http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/?p=11783#comment-37946Stop misleading the public with propaganda and ideology about Nicotine being as dangerous as smoking tobacco. Nicotine is not toxic. E-cigs only contain Nicotine and not tobacco. They don’t burn or combust. Embrace e-cigs because, “Experts recommend reclassification of Nicotine:http://www.ecita.org.uk/blog/index.php/how-toxic-is-e-liquid/
]]>By: Ros Chttp://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2014/07/11/our-new-report-gazing-into-a-tobacco-free-future/comment-page-1/#comment-37935
Sat, 12 Jul 2014 14:51:48 +0000http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/?p=11783#comment-37935I find it so sad that an organisation I used to respect can produce an article about smoking reduction with so little content. It’s even more sad that Cancer Research Uk continues to ignore the role of one of the most effective proven ways of reducing smoking… VAPING. Why are CRUK ignoring the increasing evidence that vaping is a more safe and effective means of nicotine delivery? Why are they choosing to ignore something that will almost certainly have a major role in reducing the prevalence of cancer in this country?
]]>By: Doddererhttp://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2014/07/11/our-new-report-gazing-into-a-tobacco-free-future/comment-page-1/#comment-37932
Sat, 12 Jul 2014 09:33:12 +0000http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/?p=11783#comment-37932The latest ‘Smoking in England’ survey shows a prevalence of 18.7%(May 2014).We know from the recent ASH survey(Feb 2014) that there are 700k exclusive vapers in GB – say 600k in England which represents approx. 1.4% of the English population.

Taking these 2 surveys together,it can be assumed that forcing vapers back to smoking would increase prevalence back to 20%.

We’re asking you to replace idealism with a dose of realism because we’re the ones that will suffer if you don’t deviate from your current path – it’s just common humanity

]]>By: Doddererhttp://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2014/07/11/our-new-report-gazing-into-a-tobacco-free-future/comment-page-1/#comment-37931
Sat, 12 Jul 2014 09:21:50 +0000http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/?p=11783#comment-37931“In the UK, smoking rates fell by six per cent between 2002 and 2012, but recently that decline has slowed.”

The ONS annual survey showed a prevalence of 26% in 2002 falling to 21% in 2007.It remained at 21% for 2008 and 2009 before falling to 20% in 2010 where it remained for 2011 and 2012.

So your statement is disingenuous to say the least.You can’t solve the problem until you admit you have a problem.Just beating smokers harder and harder with a stick won’t work – they’re stubborn human beings just like you

]]>By: Threthnyhttp://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2014/07/11/our-new-report-gazing-into-a-tobacco-free-future/comment-page-1/#comment-37929
Sat, 12 Jul 2014 08:17:24 +0000http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/?p=11783#comment-37929Wonder why they choose the ‘tobacco free world’ goal? Its because it will never happen. Its like saying a ‘violence free world’. Tobacco control is now an industry, many jobs rely on it. People pay their mortgages, school fees, rent etc etc. It helps to have an unobtainable goal so the money comes rolling in.

Harm reduction really fks this up for them. Wonder why Glantz/Chapman/McKee are so embroiled in a ‘scream test’ of their own making? Well this is why.

When public health/TC is more concerned about ‘denormalisation’ than public health well you know its time for them to hang up their dancing shoes.

]]>By: Karyylhttp://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2014/07/11/our-new-report-gazing-into-a-tobacco-free-future/comment-page-1/#comment-37915
Sat, 12 Jul 2014 01:34:44 +0000http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/?p=11783#comment-37915Celebrating 43 years of smoking control, which would have gone much faster if it had not morphed into tobacco control and therefore hidden the snus victory for so long. But still, the tobacco control industry successfully got all the people who did NOT need nicotine, and only started because it was “cool”, off of cigarettes. Leaving the 15-20% of the population that does need nicotine, like those that used it before there ever was a Big Tobacco, as a steady-state, non-declining, smoking (and dying) population. In fact, if it were not for the massive anti-smoking education efforts, Hon Like might not have realized what killed his father, and that it would likely kill him too, and he would not have invented the e-cig. So, smoking-control people, man up and claim e-cigs as the endgame of your 50-year fight! You made Hon Lik, Hon Lik made the thing that will save over a million people worldwide every year. Celebrate! You did it!
]]>By: Angryoldgithttp://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2014/07/11/our-new-report-gazing-into-a-tobacco-free-future/comment-page-1/#comment-37910
Fri, 11 Jul 2014 23:42:12 +0000http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/?p=11783#comment-37910“Endgame” sounds a lot like “Final Solution” to many people. However, I will make the assumption that you have a genuine desire to reduce tobacco usage purely for health reasons. Does your endgame include supporting the e-cigarette industry, which has already shown remarkable promise in reducing the prevalence of smoking? Are you anti-tobacco or anti-anything-enjoyable. The difference could save many, many lives?
]]>By: Tom Gleesonhttp://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2014/07/11/our-new-report-gazing-into-a-tobacco-free-future/comment-page-1/#comment-37909
Fri, 11 Jul 2014 23:23:54 +0000http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/?p=11783#comment-37909First off, tobacco is not an epidemic, look it up in the dictionary. End game? this is a game to you? Without offering an alternative your doomed to failure, old folk tail about the wind and sun trying to see who could get a man to remove his coat apply here. All stick and no carrot.
If you think the limited marketing available to tobacco currently is so effective, why isn’t the unlimited marketing available to tobacco control more effective? Could it be because you miss the point completely, ending smoking as the means of nicotine use should be the ‘ end game’ at which point the health effect would be negligible. Embrace harm reduction as you move towards smoking elimination and you might get more people to embrace your smoke free socity vision. Yes I said smoke free not tobacco free. If cancer reduction is the goal then smoke is the target not tobacco.
]]>By: Dominic Reedman-Flinthttp://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2014/07/11/our-new-report-gazing-into-a-tobacco-free-future/comment-page-1/#comment-37906
Fri, 11 Jul 2014 21:43:22 +0000http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/?p=11783#comment-37906We have found the solution. It just needs embracing by the likes of yourselves.

Vaping has the potential to end tobacco use completely. Nicotine addicts can still get their kicks without tobacco and much more safely.
To not accept and back this gateway out of cigarettes is ridiculous

]]>By: smofunkinghttp://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2014/07/11/our-new-report-gazing-into-a-tobacco-free-future/comment-page-1/#comment-37902
Fri, 11 Jul 2014 20:37:28 +0000http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/?p=11783#comment-37902“How do we keep up the pressure on the tobacco industry?” That would appear to be by persecuting their customers into submission because you only see them as weak willed addicts rather than strong minded individuals who have the ability to come to their own informed decisions.
In the unlikely event that you ever reach your oxymoronic 5% smoke free goal does that mean that your war on this legal pastime (NOT an epidemic) and its participants will have reached its conclusion? I doubt it.
]]>